Only one more day remains in the 2025 Men’s NCAA Championships, and it’s time to once again pick apart how teams fared points-wise on night three.
The first thing to say is that California swam lights. They tripled their psych sheet predicted points, going from 49 anticipated to 152 in reality. In part, this showcases a limitation of psych sheet predictions. A spreadsheet can’t take into account that Lucas Henveaux and Destin Lasco were not seeded to score in their events tonight, and any reasonable swim follower would tell you that they were going to climb the ranks.
Even still, unusually low seeded stars aside, the Golden Bears outperformed themselves and their competition from top to bottom. It’s their third straight day of overperforming their seed, and if they repeat this type of performance tomorrow, they’ll make the top three team race quite interesting.
| Team | Score After Day 3 | Day 4 Prediction (no diving) | Total |
| Texas | 368 | 128.5 | 496.5 |
| Florida | 233 | 96 | 329 |
| Cal | 312.5 | 126 | 438.5 |
| Indiana | 304 | 98 | 402 |
Texas continues to perform relatively close to seed, and they have a cushion heading into day four if Cal swims lights out again. Although Indiana didn’t have quite as impressive of a point session in the pool last night as they did on the first two nights, their diving could still keep them in the mix. So far, the Hoosiers are averaging 39 diving points per night while Cal is averaging 0 and Texas 11.
Full Team Breakdown
The University of Georgia had a spectacular point day, climbing up to fifth in the overall ranks. Their neighbors to the south, Florida and Florida State, suffered the biggest drops in points on night three.
| Team | Day 3 Points | Day 3 Prediction | Over/Under |
| Cal | 152 | 49 | +103 |
| UGA | 85.5 | 60 | +26 |
| Wisconsin | 14 | 1 | +13 |
| Stanford | 65 | 54 | +11 |
| Alabama | 25 | 18 | +7 |
| ASU | 61 | 55.5 | +6 |
| Louisville | 29 | 25 | +4 |
| LSU | 6 | 2 | +4 |
| NC State | 38 | 36 | +2 |
| Purdue | 2 | 0 | +2 |
| Michigan | 40 | 39 | +1 |
| USC | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Yale | 6 | 7 | -1 |
| Army | 11 | 13 | -2 |
| Delaware | 0 | 2 | -2 |
| Indiana | 109 | 111.5 | -3 |
| VT | 34 | 36.5 | -3 |
| Auburn | 0 | 3 | -3 |
| SMU | 0 | 3 | -3 |
| Brown | 11 | 15 | -4 |
| Virginia | 4 | 13 | -9 |
| Texas | 163 | 172.5 | -10 |
| UNC | 5 | 15 | -10 |
| OSU | 19 | 30 | -11 |
| Arizona | 0 | 17 | -17 |
| Tennessee | 44.5 | 63.5 | -19 |
| TAMU | 12 | 34 | -22 |
| Florida | 132 | 157.5 | -26 |
| FSU | 14 | 50 | -36 |
100 fly
| Team | Predicted | Actual | Difference |
| Texas | 0.5 | 0 | -0.5 |
| Florida | 33.5 | 34 | 0.5 |
| Cal | 7 | 15 | 8 |
| Indiana | 5.5 | 9 | 3.5 |
| Tennessee | 2.5 | 9 | 6.5 |
| ASU | 16 | 17 | 1 |
| NC State | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| UGA | 17 | 16 | -1 |
| Stanford | 15 | 13 | -2 |
| Michigan | 13.5 | 12 | -1.5 |
| FSU | 11 | 3 | -8 |
| VT | 6.5 | 11 | 4.5 |
| OSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Louisville | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alabama | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TAMU | 12 | 0 | -12 |
| Auburn | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Yale | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Arizona | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 9 | 0 | -9 |
| LSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brown | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UNC | 0 | 1 | 1 |
400 IM
| Team | Predicted | Actual | Difference |
| Texas | 45 | 44 | -1 |
| Florida | 29 | 11 | -18 |
| Cal | 0 | 26 | 26 |
| Indiana | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ASU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| NC State | 4 | 9 | 5 |
| UGA | 20 | 15 | -5 |
| Stanford | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Michigan | 7 | 0 | -7 |
| FSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| VT | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OSU | 17 | 17 | 0 |
| Louisville | 11 | 2 | -9 |
| Alabama | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TAMU | 16 | 12 | -4 |
| Auburn | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Yale | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brown | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UNC | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| USC | 2 | 0 | -2 |
| Wisconsin | 1 | 14 | 13 |
| Kentucky | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Penn | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cal Baptist | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Army | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Princeton | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cornell | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Georgia Tech | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SMU | 3 | 0 | -3 |
200 free
| Team | Predicted | Actual | Difference |
| Texas | 36 | 37 | 1 |
| Florida | 12 | 5 | -7 |
| Cal | 0 | 34 | 34 |
| Indiana | 4 | 1 | -3 |
| Tennessee | 17 | 12.5 | -4.5 |
| ASU | 6.5 | 9 | 2.5 |
| NC State | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UGA | 14 | 12.5 | -1.5 |
| Stanford | 11 | 11 | 0 |
| Michigan | 6.5 | 6 | -0.5 |
| FSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| VT | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OSU | 13 | 2 | -11 |
| Louisville | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alabama | 18 | 25 | 7 |
| TAMU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Auburn | 2 | 0 | -2 |
| Yale | 1 | 0 | -1 |
| Arizona | 9 | 0 | -9 |
| Virginia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brown | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UNC | 5 | 0 | -5 |
100 breast
| Team | Predicted | Actual | Difference |
| Texas | 21 | 16 | -5 |
| Florida | 23 | 25 | 2 |
| Cal | 11 | 13 | 2 |
| Indiana | 51 | 52 | 1 |
| Tennessee | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ASU | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| NC State | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UGA | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Stanford | 6 | 14 | 8 |
| Michigan | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| VT | 12 | 4 | -8 |
| OSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Louisville | 14 | 17 | 3 |
| Alabama | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TAMU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Auburn | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Yale | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brown | 15 | 11 | -4 |
100 back
| Team | Predicted | Actual | Difference |
| Texas | 36 | 32 | -4 |
| Florida | 20 | 17 | -3 |
| Cal | 7 | 34 | 27 |
| Indiana | 21 | 19 | -2 |
| Tennessee | 12 | 9 | -3 |
| ASU | 5 | 0 | -5 |
| NC State | 6 | 4 | -2 |
| UGA | 9 | 16 | 7 |
| Stanford | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Michigan | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FSU | 25 | 3 | -22 |
| VT | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| OSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Louisville | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alabama | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TAMU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Auburn | 1 | 0 | -1 |
| Yale | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Virginia | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brown | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UNC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| USC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kentucky | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Penn | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cal Baptist | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Army | 13 | 11 | -2 |
400 medley relay
| Team | Predicted | Actual | Difference |
| Texas | 34 | 34 | 0 |
| Florida | 40 | 40 | 0 |
| Cal | 24 | 30 | 6 |
| Indiana | 30 | 28 | -2 |
| Tennessee | 32 | 14 | -18 |
| ASU | 28 | 32 | 4 |
| NC State | 26 | 18 | -8 |
| UGA | 0 | 26 | 26 |
| Stanford | 22 | 24 | 2 |
| Michigan | 12 | 22 | 10 |
| FSU | 14 | 8 | -6 |
| VT | 18 | 12 | -6 |
| OSU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Louisville | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| Alabama | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TAMU | 6 | 0 | -6 |
| Auburn | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Yale | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arizona | 8 | 0 | -8 |
| Virginia | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| LSU | 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Brown | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| UNC | 10 | 0 | -10 |
| USC | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Has anyone done an analysis of the scoring by recruiting class at NCAA’s this year? It appears that COVID has had a long-term effect on swimming and that the older classes especially 5th and 6th year swimmers have taken away from Freshmen scoring at NCAA’s. Is it me or does it appear that freshmen have not performed as well at NCAA’s this year?
I had doubts about Texas ability to have everyone deliver. And so far, those doubts have all been answered by people stepping up. There is a path for cal and IU to scratch there way back in this, but it won’t be easy with the way Texas is swimming.
Texas is in control. The only way for Cal or IU to win is for Texas to make mistakes.
Yeah doesn’t tell the story. Texas came in seeded so high which is not how they approached the season in the past. They didn’t really have any room to move up. All the pressure has been on them to hold those seeds and they have been absolutely clutch winning event after event.
Except for Modlgins DQ and has been a touch slower all meet. Hopefully he rebounds in the 2back
As usual, Cal is killing it at NCAA’s
They are, and I’m a fan of Cal, but you can’t really look at their score over seed because they don’t enter people at best times, just season best. e.g., Lasco being seeded to not score in 100 Back is not really very accurate.
FYI – that’s the entry rule for the NCAA’s. Season best and not lifetime best.
As long as I swam club, high school and college – seed times were ALWAYS season best to that point in the year by each swimmer. Never life long personal best.
You can only enter based on your season best time. You can’t enter with your lifetime best if you didn’t go a lifetime best during the season
But you could collect data on 2-3 years of best times or “average times” and then score the meet
Pretty accurate but quite a load
163 – 152 – 132 – 109 / TX – Cal – FL – IU
Those are the numbers that matter the most when you evaluate Friday’s scoring.
The psych sheet can be deceiving. Each swimmers personal career best time may likely be more relevant than their psyche sheet times. The latter reflect in-season or conference meet performances only. And then you’ve still got to factor in diving before you can declare which school wins the NCAA team title.
I’m eager to watch today’s prelims! We can then speculate about who will do what tonight. I hope the meet comes down to the 400 freestyle relay!
It should be scored separately. It robs BOTH teams a championship. IU divers are clearly the best but will never be “national champions” due to the swimmers. When can this change? It’s so dumb to combine the scores. The female Miami divers were lights out, but showed them in just about last in the team rankings.
And breaststroke should be scored separately too!! IU should have multiple national team titles from this meet, as their 100 breaststroke scored huge points but they won’t be recognized as national champions either! /s
“Breastroke U” but potentially 2 years in a row not even single swimmer in top 3 either 100/200 breast, that’s hilarious
I agree – kid who took second last year for Towsend State (sp) with a 50.4 swims a 50.9 in consoles after moving to Indiana. Hmmmmm
Whoops – he did swim in finals. The graphic in. Bottom right corner said consolation. Blame espn.
Huh?
I hope there will also be an NCAA rule change that prevents a team from adding a 24-year-old Olympian freshman pro in the middle of the season who has already been paid and only shows up 1-2 times before the NCs, it’s ridiculous
Rules changes are going the other way unfortunately
With at least 2 schools currently shelling out over $1,000,000 in NIL money to buy swimmers HOLD ON! The game has changed!
That too.
Swimming and diving being combined is like saying, “The hockey game is tied. Let’s bring out the figure skaters to break the tie.”
Yup. Shared ice is the only common thread. Except Georgia tech where the Coach is the same
IU also puts serious scholarship dollars into diving. Other teams could also do that and invest those resources.
Cal should have to get like 60 points over Texas on the last day to win this right (not counting diving)? Idk if it’s possible – even though they will probably outscore the Longhorns by just how strong their last day usually is, the only event in which they can get significantly ahead is the 200 fly (and Jett isn’t even entered in that one). Unless of course there are some big misses, but that can happen to any team.
Unfortunately I don’t know if I see that happening. If I had to guess up/downs for Cal vs Texas:
1650: Cal 1/1, Texas 2/1
200 back: Cal 3/2, Texas 1/1
100 free: Cal 1/2, Texas 1/1
200 breast: Cal 1/0, Texas 1/1
200 fly: Cal 1/1, Texas 0/1
Platform: Cal 1/1, Texas 0/0
Total: Cal 8/7, Texas 5/5
Diving I’m not sure about, mostly basing that on returning divers and where they scored last year. Cal should have a great session but I don’t know that it will be enough to catch Texas
If both teams swim to form and there are no consequential DQ’s this meet is pretty set except for IU divers having a say
Anything can happen still
The analysis and charts certainly demonstrate one clear fact: a team has basically got to grind it out over at least 3 if not 4 days in order to be a contender. i still think Longhorns are now on track for the win. Cal has had some impressive swims and Indiana’s diving is tops, but, all in all, it’s Texas, I think, for the win.
I agree with your analysis. Let me be the first to say congrats to Texas on your rent-a-win.
A win is a win
every single top contending team added people at the semester right?
Bowman and Looze finally grabbed the playbook from Durden and Marsh. They were the first mercenary coaches to grab older international swimmers and bring them in mid season to win championships (Georgia also tried with the South African swimmer). And Cal and IU definitely have the oldest rosters at NCAA’s this year. My oldest son finished swimming collegiately 2 years ago and is younger than Bjorn Seeliger who is still swimming. Lol. Texas’s main fire power are all juniors and below (minus Hobson). Texas is looking strong for years to come.
Van Renen has been in college in the US since his freshman year and is the normal age for a college junior, he transferred to us from SIU after freshman year. He’s not one of those 24 year old mercenaries that comes to the team second semester or anything like that.
I think they’re referring to Sates
Wasn’t Sates 18 when he came to Georgia?
Sadly, you are right! NIL/Portal has changed the game. But, in truth, would you stand on principle and have your team not participate in the new NCAA rules? Trying to assemble the best team money can buy?
I’ve learned over time that losers in life will always find a way to try and diminish the accomplishments of others. They just can’t accept that someone out hustled and outperformed them, so they grasp at ways to try to tear others down. It happens in work and sports.
Winners in life respect the efforts of others to play within the rules to achieve something. I think all the teams and swimmers at this level are winners and I respect their accomplishments. The team or person that gets 1st isn’t the only one that succeeds.
Trying to tear someone down to make yourself feel better is petty, immature and very transparent to everyone but apparently you.